Moore & Ors, R (on the application of) v Care Standards Tribunal & Anor [2004] EWHC 1823 (Admin) (14 June 2004)

Moore & Ors, R (on the application of) v Care Standards Tribunal & Anor [2004] EWHC 1823 (Admin) (14 June 2004)

Permission is granted for judicial review because it is arguable that the Tribunal erred in law by not treating the existence of tenancies as determinative or of critical importance, and the proceedings are not academic given the wider relevance and unresolved legal issues.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1823 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Moore and Others; First Defendant: Care Standards Tribunal; Second Defendant: Commission for Social Care Inspection
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Hearing
Outcome
Permission for judicial review granted; second defendant substituted; Mr Moore's appeal stayed and listed with judicial review for disposal.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Tenancy Agreements, Public Law Discretion, Statutory Construction, Care Standards
Administrative Law Social Care Law Land Law Judicial Review Tenancy Agreements Public Law Discretion Statutory Construction Care Standards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moore and Others

Claimant

Care Standards Tribunal

First Defendant

Commission for Social Care Inspection

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by not treating the existence of tenancies as determinative or of critical importance
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are academic if the existence of tenancies is assumed or asserted
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to address the argument that tenancy agreements were a fiction rather than a sham

Ratio Decidendi

Permission is granted for judicial review because it is arguable that the Tribunal erred in law by not treating the existence of tenancies as determinative or of critical importance, and the proceedings are not academic given the wider relevance and unresolved legal issues.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review granted; second defendant substituted; Mr Moore's appeal stayed and listed with judicial review for disposal.

Orders

  • Permission for judicial review granted.
  • Commission for Social Care Inspection substituted as second defendant.